ArticleJournal of biopharmaceutical statistics2018
Sample size calculations for blinding assessment.
Article in Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Blinding, sham, and treatment effects in randomized controlled trials for back pain in 2000-2019: A review and meta-analytic approach.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Successful Blinding or Wishful Thinking? A Secondary Analysis of a Randomised Controlled Trial of Manual Therapy.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Trial
- 'Which treatment do you believe you received?' A randomised blinding feasibility trial of spinal manual therapy.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025Trial
- Is blinding in studies of manual soft tissue mobilisation of the back possible? A feasibility randomised controlled trial with Swiss graduate students.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2024Trial
- Feasibility of blinding spinal manual therapy interventions among participants and outcome assessors: protocol for a blinding feasibility trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- Applying Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials to Improve Future ALI/ARDS Trials.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Review
- The iSTOPP study: Protocol for a proof-of-concept randomised clinical trial of sensory discrimination training in people with persistent neck pain.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- The Feasibility of Blinding Intraoperative Electro-Auricular Acupuncture Under Neuraxial Anesthesia.Medical acupuncture · 2021Article
- Review
- Overdispersion models for correlated multinomial data: Applications to blinding assessment.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Blinding Assessment: One Step Forward.Dental hypothesesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Blinding is a critical component in randomized clinical trials along with treatment effect estimation and comparisons between the treatments. Various methods have been proposed for the statistical analyses of blinding-related data, but there is little guidance for determining the sample size for this type of data, especially if blinding assessment is done in pilot studies. In this paper, we try to fill this gap and provide simple methods to address sample size calculations for a "new" study with different research questions and scenarios. The proposed methods are framed in terms of estimation/precision or statistical testing to allow investigators to choose the best suited method for their goals. We illustrate the methods using worked examples with real data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.